Pages

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Uprising Against the Supreme Court--Will it be Sustained?

The GOP presidential candidates leading in the polls are those who are pushing back against the "establishment" elites in the Republican Party.

Now a highly respected group of 64 legal experts and scholars are, in writing, pushing back against the United States Supreme Court in regard to their recent ruling on marriage, declaring their ruling "is not the law of the land" and asking all office holders, together with all presidential candidates, to reject the Court's decision.

They cite Founder James Madison and President Lincoln, among others who support their resistance.

Some lawyers and professors who support same-sex "marriage" are now questioning the Supreme Court's decision.

This is a big deal.

These scholars who teach at schools like Princeton and Oxford and Notre Dame and Boston and Boston College and Michigan State and Kansas State and Vanderbilt and Hillsdale and the University of Toronto and the University of Nebraska say the Court's decision on marriage has "no more claim" to being the law of the land "than Dred Scott v. Sandford had when President Abraham Lincoln condemned that pro-slavery decision as an offense against the very Constitution the Justices had sworn to uphold."

The scholars note in their declaration, "Lincoln warned that for the people and their elected leaders to treat unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court as creating a binding rule on anyone other than the parties to the particular case would be for 'the people [to] have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal'."

They also quote James Madison who said regarding the balance of powers: "The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers."

These scholars and lawyers are not merely putting forward a philosophical statement, they are reminding "all office holders in the United States that they pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of 5 members of the Supreme Court.

They are also calling on "all federal and state officeholders" to refuse to accept the "Obergefell" decision "as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case."

It isn't only conservatives who are challenging the notion that the Court's decision regarding the "Obergefell" now makes same-sex "marriage" the law of the land.

Jonathan Turley, chair of public interest law at George Washington University and who supports same-sex "marriage", is questioning the Supreme Court's decision.

Writing in the Washington Post, Turley took issue with Justice Kennedy's reasoning in what he wrote on behalf of the majority (5) that voted in favor of redefining marriage.

Kennedy wrote, "The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest."

"With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter."

Professor Turley, who supports same-sex "marriage", wrote, "Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection?"

Turley questions why Kennedy presented "dignity" as the vehicle for his opinion, raising the question or whether others in group "marriages" and other "loving" relationships will not claim the same right.

He also asks about the dignity of bakers, florists and others who strong object to same-sex "marriage" on religious grounds.

Clearly the notion is in his mind that homosexuals are not "born that way"---while ethnics are.

He says, "Could employees challenge workplace dress codes as intruding upon their right to 'define and express their identity'? Could those subject college admissions preferences raise claims that race or gender classifications deny their individual effort to 'define and express their identity'?"

We all know that is already happening.

Other scholars and professors are verbalizing this position.

It is not only Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk, who is taking her stand in the public square.

There is a growing and rising resistance to the notion that 5 Supreme Court appointees can arbitrarily create the "law of the land."

Abraham Lincoln, James Madison and a growing number of informed contemporary voices are denouncing this scheme.

Dr. Michael Brown has written a book titled, "Outlasting the Gay Revolution" where he outlines 4 principles he believes will turn the tide on redefining marriage and the moral collapse in our culture.

This movement of resistance by informed scholars gives further legal, moral and Constitutional impetus to his principles.

Two of his principles are: #1- Never compromise your convictions. And #4- Refuse to redefine marriage.

The 64 legal experts and professors are asking Americans to sign, with them, their declaration.

It will be passed along to elected officials and all candidates for the 2016 presidential election.

This action by these scholars is another spark that will fan the flames of Bible based push-back in our current culture.

I believe it will be sustained. This is too much, and the secularists have gone too far.

The far left progressives and their people in public office and in the courts have crossed a kind of Rubicon by attempting to "redefine" marriage, the cornerstone of all civilized societies. The model of marriage being between a man and a woman predates all organized civilizations, is affirmed by all major religions of the world, is obvious in Nature and mandated by Nature's God, the Creator.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Bold. Be Prayerful. Be Calm and Carry On.